Organized Religion

[AtifSajid]

You have a point about God - to Angel Gabriel - Prophet Muhammad - people

In Islam when Prophet Muhammad relayed the word of God to the people, at that point there were a handful of Muslim scholars who memorized what was said and also wrote it down right away. It was relayed to the general public after the scholars had memorized it and written it down. Thats what all was compiled to make the Quran. The exact same words - again you can argue that were those really the exact same words...

I havent read the Christian transalation as deep as I would like to,I would like to know how the Bible was written down.

We use to have a good christian guy on here who use to havse good conversation anout different religion with many of us. I wonder if he is still around. I havent seen him post in a very long time - Metal?(IA name)

But you should make a point in your class, that there is no such thing as a Quran written completely in English. Who is the Author of that translated Quran you are reading.

[Hulud]

You have a point about God - to Angel Gabriel - Prophet Muhammad - people

In Islam when Prophet Muhammad relayed the word of God to the people, at that point there were a handful of Muslim scholars who memorized what was said and also wrote it down right away. It was relayed to the general public after the scholars had memorized it and written it down. Thats what all was compiled to make the Quran. The exact same words - again you can argue that were those really the exact same words...

I havent read the Christian transalation as deep as I would like to,I would like to know how the Bible was written down.

We use to have a good christian guy on here who use to havse good conversation anout different religion with many of us. I wonder if he is still around. I havent seen him post in a very long time - Metal?(IA name)

But you should make a point in your class, that there is no such thing as a Quran written completely in English. Who is the Author of that translated Quran you are reading.

metalman, funny thing is after ive talked with him in person multiple times, i dont think hes not religious, hes just knowledgable (sp?). but i could be wrong

yea the professor said multiple times that the english version is not a religious text. so i hope everyone understood that lol

ill check on the author, but im off to bed for now, ill be back tomorrow to discuss it

[metalman]

We use to have a good christian guy on here who use to havse good conversation anout different religion with many of us. I wonder if he is still around. I havent seen him post in a very long time - Metal?(IA name)

metalman, funny thing is after ive talked with him in person multiple times, i dont think hes not religious, hes just knowledgable (sp?). but i could be wrong

First, thank you AtifSajid for remembering some of the past discussion and recalling it as 'good conversation'.
I dont mind intelligent disagreement, I even welcome and appreciate it as a springboard to greater personal understanding, but often these topics only lead to retarded responses and/flame offs. I appreciate your responses being other then that!

Secondly, Hulud has stated a fairly decent description of who/what I am. I belong to no organized religion. I am not here to 'covert' anyone to any church...just get people to study and think for themselves...if thats possible. Much of my commentary has been directed at so called Christians from their own Book...rather then 'others'. That being said, my beliefs could be described as "christian" in the sense that they often coincide with Biblical teachings.
I have spent a considerable time studying that book from a historic, scientific, and logical perspective, comparing it to what I have observed in life...so I have some knowlege of it. I do believe in Creation and a Creator because scientifically and logically that's what makes the most sense to me and what I see the most physical evidence for.

There are many teachings and principles in the Bible that I find no solid argument against...at least an argument that makes sense....there's always argument.

My life is busy enough currently that I have not the time needed to intelligently discuss religion here. And its my old fogie opinion that if I have no time to discuss something intelligently then I say nothing much.

As for the topic...organized religion...in general I believe organized religions to be mostly a complete failure. The reason is that the organizations are of men, controlled and designed of men, and not controlled by a God or Creator...which is mans fault, not God's. In every religion there are those that see things the way they want it, rather then how it actually is. The most obvious examples are Christian, Jewish, & Muslim extremists who persecute and kill people they disagree with. No religion is without blemish in this department. Much is made about Muslim extremists and given the current world situation and happenings thats understandable...but if one is completely and historically honest, the largest quantity of crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by Catholic/Christian entities. Of course, in reality no action excuses the other.

If one investigates the real underlying principles of some religions one will find that SELF, the works of man, are the real center of the focus, even if disguised with rituals and other 'religious' hype. I find such religions mostly worthless and nothing more then mankind admiring himself....but I will not name them here, so dont ask! LOL

Its true that many follow only traditions and the words of pastors, ministers, teachers, priests, gurus, 'holy men' and the like...without much honest personal study, understanding, or growth. That being said, there are "God-like" decent people in every religion, who actually LIVE the principles.

On a side note...
As for science and religion being exact opposites...thats hardly the case. Much (not all) of mankinds science, especially evolutionary science, violates its own basic principles and takes huge amounts of faith to believe. In fact, many scientists have way more faith in unsubstantiated nonsense and theories then Christians, Jews, or Muslims have in their religions.

Okay...back to my cars and parts...I'll leave the serious stuff to you folks. Have fun!

[bu villain]

On a side note...
As for science and religion being exact opposites...thats hardly the case. Much (not all) of mankinds science, especially evolutionary science, violates its own basic principles and takes huge amounts of faith to believe. In fact, many scientists have way more faith in unsubstantiated nonsense and theories then Christians, Jews, or Muslims have in their religions.

Normally, I don't bother too much with these kinda of discussions but since you seem like a rational person who won't take a logical discussion personally... I'm curious, in what way does evolutionary theory violate the principles of science? I've only heard a handful of arguments (e.g., irreducible complexity) against the "theory of evolution" (there is no law of evolution). And none of them can not be intelligently responded to.

Secondly, why does it take a lot of faith to believe in it? It certainly doesn't take more faith than believing in an all knowing, all powerful being who for some reason gives a **** about whether or not you lie to someone. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory so I would tend to think it takes very little faith to believe in it. I'm not going to post links here because if you go to any bookstore you can easily find many books on the subject.

Once again, this is not an attack on anyone.

[metalman]

I'm curious, in what way does evolutionary theory violate the principles of science?

I will give one example, although there are others....
A cornerstone of evolutionary earth science relates to radio carbon dating. Simply put, carbon dating isnt accurate. Not even a little. Objects with a known extreme short age can be carbon dated to thousands, even tens of thousands of years old. Using methods that have already been proven as highly inaccurate and unreliable, (and thats being kind) as definitive measuring tools violates any reasonable principle of true science.

Secondly, why does it take a lot of faith to believe in it? .

The likelyhood of every minut interacting lifeform within our earth and perfectly balanced intricate structure therein coming into existence from nothing, merely by chance, over time is FAR LESS then the likelyhood of assembling a complex Rolex time piece by putting all the loose already existing parts in a cardboard box and shaking them until they assemble themselves into a precision functioning timepiece....and that possibility is around zero.
Make no mistake..evolutionary belief takes immense faith....or ignorance...that works too. And by ignorance I mean being uninformed, not stupid. Dont want anyone to think I am attacking them.

[bu villain]

I will give one example, although there are others....
A cornerstone of evolutionary earth science relates to radio carbon dating. Simply put, carbon dating isnt accurate. Not even a little. Objects with a known extreme short age can be carbon dated to thousands, even tens of thousands of years old. Using methods that have already been proven as highly inaccurate and unreliable, (and thats being kind) as definitive measuring tools violates any reasonable principle of true science.

Any idea why carbon dating is still being consistantly used for dating everything if it is so worthless? I found many articles talking about how it can be innacurate if certain things are not taken into account but nothing to say that it is not valid. Do you know of any references to where I can hear your side (please only reputable sources e.g. scientific journals, university publishings etc.) heres a couple talking about its possible innacuracies when improperly performed but they still say it is quite valid.

http://www.et.byu.edu/~adw45/Carbon%20Dating.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Natur.270...25P

The likelyhood of every minut interacting lifeform within our earth and perfectly balanced intricate structure therein coming into existence from nothing, merely by chance, over time is FAR LESS then the likelyhood of assembling a complex Rolex time piece by putting all the loose already existing parts in a cardboard box and shaking them until they assemble themselves into a precision functioning timepiece....and that possibility is around zero.
Make no mistake..evolutionary belief takes immense faith....or ignorance...that works too. And by ignorance I mean being uninformed, not stupid. Dont want anyone to think I am attacking them.

I find this to be a very flawed argument. Evolution depends greatly on the concept of natural selection which is the exact opposite of "chance". Natural selection says the "best" traits are passed on, not that random traits are passed on. In your rolex box thought experiment you are effectively disregarding natural selection, the cornerstone of evolution.

Also, you say that it is very unlikely that everything evolved so perfectly balanced but that is not true. It is backwards reasoning to take the end product and say that it is very unlikely given the start. If you are playing poker and you get a 5 of clubs, eight of diamonds, jack of diamonds, 2 of hearts, and 10 of clubs you could say "Wow the odds of me getting those exact five cards was over 1 in 3 hundred million" and you could play poker the rest of your life and maybe never get that hand again but it doesn't mean that the hand was "designed".


Finally, we can both agree that evolution is still a theory but as far as I know, there is no other theory out there with more evidence. Do you know of one?